Define 'species'

[Aron-Ra]

The debate was deliberatly focused on our origins, even though you are continually moving the goal posts.

I did no such thing, and I demand you back that allegation before the rest of the panel. You tried to move the goal posts when you attempted to change the mutually-agreed topic from the origin of our species to the origin of life, and when you tried to shift the focus to "history as it relates to Darwinian and Creationist thinking."

I have finally posted my closing comments to that debate, which I had to write up to three times due to a series of system failures. Sorry about the delay.

The actual debate was a challenge to prove to you that evolution was the truest, best explanation for the origin of our species, and that it was the only one with evidentiary support or scientific validity. I have achieved both of those goals because that was already your position at the onset, much to my surprise. Why did you even accept my challenge if you already agreed with the proposition, and was therefore guaranteed to lose?

The strawman of immutability is evident in your arguments

Again, I demand you show us where, because I have never assumed, nor indicated in any way, at any time, that anyone still believed in the immutability of species, and have already clarified this for you in that debate.

and the contrast between multiple and universal common ancestory has been blured due to the lack of substantive points of departure and incessant sarcasim.

Well then, you should have made some substantive points, like I did, and stop being so sarcastic.

If you want to demonstrate that life arose from purly naturalistic processes then you must account for the protoorganism which is fundamentally impossible from purly naturalistic mechanisms. If this is fundamentally indefensable at the point of the primary first cause then how can I trust the reasoning that follows?

Because it is not fundamentally impossible. I'm taking molecular biology right now, and I'm surprised to say that I'm beginning to see how it is not only possible, but even probable!

Now, when legions of ingenious specialists can demonstrate their science to me in a classroom, in excruciating, overwhelming, and always consistent detail, withstanding not only my battery of detailed questions there, but also defending those positions against the rigorous assailment of the peer-review process from other learned critical specialists internationally, and when I see that no amount of in-depth investigation can reveal any real flaw in these ideas, then I think they're probably credible. But when the rabble of uneducated and nigh-illiterate, emotionally-prejudiced, and woefully ignorant snake-oil salesmen speak out in paranoid rants against the very method of science, when they don't hold any relevant degrees, and have sworn an oath never to let themselves change their minds regardless what the evidence turns out to be, while pretending to challenge all the science we really can see and test, against the idea that something no one knows is even real poofed everything out of nothing with magic words, and anyone who says different is a commie, nazi, atheist, -then I figure they're probably not credible at all, especially if none of their claims can withstand the slightest scrutiny from me or anyone else, and they dare not be subjected to the peer-review process.

Natural science in principle and practice is not about semantics but taxonomic relations that have not been adequetly defined or demonstrated definitely is.

I asked you, 'is this biologically related to that?' No matter what names or categories we assign, the relationships don't change. So it can't be semantics! The only reason you say it is is because you can't ever get any of the associated terms right, and can't spell them right either!

Your arguments are based allmost exclusivly on a host of hypothesis that have yet to be demonstrated and ultimatly give rise to more questions then answers.

That's the nature of discovery. Every truth we ever discover leads to more questions than answers. Get used to it.

And I would be demonstrating these things, except that you keep insisting on dragging philosophy into this somehow. Can we leave Darwin out of this, and all your stupid allegations about atheist nazis, and other deliberately inflammatory allegations, and get back to the subject please?

Given you reliance on gradualism you would seem to be neodarwinian at least in a general way. Your fascination with taxonomy while interesting follows the line of reason that Darwin used at the most substantive points of his discussion in Origin of Species.

So if I agree with something Darwin believed, then I'm a Darwinian? What about when I disagree with something he believed? What if I think some of Gould's explanations are more accurate? Am I also a Gouldian? A quasi-Darwinian Mayrist?

We don't seem to be having any difficulty finding a good working definition of species we are wrestling over lines of descent.

Nor did we the first time I gave you this definition. You accepted it uncategorically, then in one of your next posts, you acted like you had never seen it, and now you falsely accused me (you love to do that) of never even being able to provide that definition. You have one short memory, sir!

I think the philosophical tenants of the synthesis are a little out of you reach right now

Then they must be miles out of yours. How did you even know about them?

but in time I think you will realize that you are neodarwinian in your orientation even though you have reservations to the point of being a little iconoclastic.

I am not a Darwinian, nor a neo-darwinian. I am not a follower of his, and as you say, I am iconoclast, so being a Darwinian follower would be impossible for me. If anything, I'm a Saganist.

The mystical force of nature is the tool of the neodarwinian,

This coming from someone proposing magic as a serious explanation! You creationists are masters of irony!

creationism is based on revelation, not some mystical universal common ancestor.

No, creationism is based on faith, which contradicts revelation, and is only able to assert it, as opposed to the concept of common ancestor, which is revealed by every remotely relevant field of study in and out of biology. That's what revelation means!

Now, if you could drop all the irrelevant passion pleas and stupid prejudice, I could get back to showing that to you.

You allso should be aware that there is a profound difference between providence and direct intervention but I suppose being unfamilar with the systematics of Christian theism is forgiveable, predictable even.
As far as characterizing science as purly objective is absurd and demonstrates a woefull ignorance of the most trusted philosophy in science. It called subjective objective duality and if you can't discern between the substantive and empirical lines of reasoning in natural science inductive reasoning becomes as mystical as anything in the pagan mythos of the anchient world.

Then you must be, (and evidently are) thoroughly mystefied.

The very nature of the peer-review process forces science to be objective. If you can't show it, you don't know it. All theories must be tested, ad nauseum, and all hypotheses must be based on evidence that would be demonstrable even to people who didn't want to believe you. That is objectivity. What you ponder or believe on your own isn't anyone else's concern. But what you publish must be objective.

The whole reason for the thread is to demonstrate that 'kinds' in Genesis and the one adopted in the synthesis is virtually identical.

They're not by a long shot. The cattle "kind" for example includes not only all wild and domestic bovines, but bison, buffalo, yaks, wildebeest, ibex, and even goats, sheep, and antelope! That's a taxonomic family with well more than a dozen extant genera, and innumerable different species.

Darwin's rendering of the central terms of his thesis, particularly species and special creation, demonstrates that his work is largely, if not entirely, philosophical.

Observation is not philosophy just like "is this related to that" is not semantics. You really need a Thesaurus.

That is his contribution to modern thought and it is exclusivly atheisitic.

Except of course that he was still a Christian when he wrote it. That and (once again) most evolutionists are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists. And don't forget that our most famous evolutionist paleontologist is a Pentecostal preacher. Why don't you write Dr. Robert Bakker at the Tate museum and tell him that Darwin's contribution to modern thought was "exclusively atheistic". I challenge you just to say that to Lucaspa.

You have only one consistency. So far, you've been consistently wrong about everything.

Your philosophical premise and the content of your arguments are from gradualism, naturalistic methodology, and universal common descent.

It is not philosophical! It is the only conclusion everything points to! And it isn't a premise either. I arrived at this conclusion, and can change to another if some other explanation seems more probable. That's why I can't be Darwinian.

Unless you abandon these elements or at some point make an effort to compromise this crucial elements you are clearly neodarwinian.

I am open to other concepts Darwin never knew. One of them being punctuated equilibrium. Typically, those who accept punk eek, (as I do also) are considered to be opposed to Darwinians and neodarwinians. However, I will still argue for gradualism, only because I know that you don't know what it really is.

Most importantly you seem oblivious to the fact that science has long discerned the difference between subjective and objective duality.

And you just seem oblivious. Oblivious to virtually everything I've already told you that you seem to forget moments later.

To be purly objective is not only impossible it is the mentality of the extremist and should not be confused with the genuine article of science.

Extremism shouldn't be permitted in science. This is true. Fortunately, it isn't permitted. Each scientist may be as subjective as he wants to be. Dobzhansky pleaded for an intelligent designer guiding evolution, and Bakker insists that evolution from common ancestry and the Bible are both true. These are both subjective opinions, but they are kept out of the scientific literature.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I am not really sure I can explain since I failed to see how these two statements contradict, but I'll do what I can. Notice in the response to gluadys the geometric potential of gene alleles. This is roughly why I don't accept the mutation concept as the primary cause of changes in species. I have often been told that I don't understand genetic drift, ring species, and nested hiearchies but I not only understand I am more dependant on these concepts the most Darwinians. The real difference is the amount of time it would take, you may be aware that transitionals happen relativly suddenly in the fossil record.

The reason they look like they contradict, is you're claiming that you don't accept that mutations cause a great amount of variability in the gene pool, yet you seem to accept that something causes a great amount of variability in the gene pool. If I were you, I'd be wondering what that "something" is.

Of course, sexual recombination of genes also accounts for variability in an individual's genetic makeup. But the raw variation on individual genes come from mutations.

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with mutation rates?

 

[mark kennedy]

I did no such thing, and I demand you back that allegation before the rest of the panel. You tried to move the goal posts when you attempted to change the mutually-agreed topic from the origin of our species to the origin of life, and when you tried to shift the focus to "history as it relates to Darwinian and Creationist thinking."

Ok, there is no panel so you are being ridiculas. For another thing I was intending to argue for the creationist model and Darwin is clearly well within bounds. As far as my allegation you should stop to think about introducing those convoluted 39 taxanomic questions after the debate had allready started. Thats moving the goal posts, making double, triple and quadriple posts is moving the goal posts.

I have finally posted my closing comments to that debate, which I had to write up to three times due to a series of system failures. Sorry about the delay.

I wasn't aware that this was the last post but since you have finally informed me I'll ask the moderators to close the thread. You didn't follow any of the rules that are supposed to restrict the length of the posts, the Ad Hominem arguments or the restriction against having over 12 rounds. Don't invite me into another formal debate unless you intend to follow the rules next time.

The actual debate was a challenge to prove to you that evolution was the truest, best explanation for the origin of our species, and that it was the only one with evidentiary support or scientific validity. I have achieved both of those goals because that was already your position at the onset, much to my surprise. Why did you even accept my challenge if you already agreed with the proposition, and was therefore guaranteed to lose?
Again, I demand you show us where, because I have never assumed, nor indicated in any way, at any time, that anyone still believed in the immutability of species, and have already clarified this for you in that debate.
Well then, you should have made some substantive points, like I did, and stop being so sarcastic.
Because it is not fundamentally impossible. I'm taking molecular biology right now, and I'm surprised to say that I'm beginning to see how it is not only possible, but even probable!

Had you even bothered to ask me I would have gladly told you that its the single common ancestor model and gradualism that I think is the myth of evolution. You never did, you just went into one rant after another doing you little victory dance everytime you made a post.

Now, when legions of ingenious specialists can demonstrate their science to me in a classroom, in excruciating, overwhelming, and always consistent detail, withstanding not only my battery of detailed questions there, but also defending those positions against the rigorous assailment of the peer-review process from other learned critical specialists internationally, and when I see that no amount of in-depth investigation can reveal any real flaw in these ideas, then I think they're probably credible. But when the rabble of uneducated and nigh-illiterate, emotionally-prejudiced, and woefully ignorant snake-oil salesmen speak out in paranoid rants against the very method of science, when they don't hold any relevant degrees, and have sworn an oath never to let themselves change their minds regardless what the evidence turns out to be, while pretending to challenge all the science we really can see and test, against the idea that something no one knows is even real poofed everything out of nothing with magic words, and anyone who says different is a commie, nazi, atheist, -then I figure they're probably not credible at all, especially if none of their claims can withstand the slightest scrutiny from me or anyone else, and they dare not be subjected to the peer-review process.
I asked you, 'is this biologically related to that?' No matter what names or categories we assign, the relationships don't change. So it can't be semantics! The only reason you say it is is because you can't ever get any of the associated terms right, and can't spell them right either!
That's the nature of discovery. Every truth we ever discover leads to more questions than answers. Get used to it.

Oh whatever, anyone who doesnt agree with you is illiterate, uneducated and truth allways gets more questions then answers. I offered you a peer reviewed article that made it clear that the transition from reptile to bird transition would have killed you perfect transitional.

And I would be demonstrating these things, except that you keep insisting on dragging philosophy into this somehow. Can we leave Darwin out of this, and all your stupid allegations about atheist nazis, and other deliberately inflammatory allegations, and get back to the subject please?
So if I agree with something Darwin believed, then I'm a Darwinian? What about when I disagree with something he believed? What if I think some of Gould's explanations are more accurate? Am I also a Gouldian? A quasi-Darwinian Mayrist?

No you are none of the above since you disagreed with everyone of them at crucial points. Your a militant atheist with deep prejudices against anything theistic unless it agrees with you and that is the only thing you proved.

Now, if you could drop all the irrelevant passion pleas and stupid prejudice, I could get back to showing that to you.
Then you must be, (and evidently are) thoroughly mystefied.

Now as far as the rest of this pointless satire and sarcasm the only thing I am mystified about is, Why does the heathen rage?

"Such has not always been the rule. Instead, “the strongest impression gained from reading the literature of the dinosaur [metabolic] physiology controversy is that some of the participants have behaved more like politicians or attorneys than scientists, passionately coming to dogmatic conclusions via arguments based on questionable assumptions and/or data subject to other interpretations” (Farlow 1990, pp. 43–44). In addition, significant peer pressure to interpret morphology, physiology, and/or behavior
of extinct taxa primarily by reliance on cladograminferred relationships has been noted elsewhere (Feduccia 1999a; Dodson 2000; Padian and Horner 2002). However, as Westoby et al. (1995, p. 532) point out, heavy reliance on cladograms as paleobiological guides largely ignores the interaction between ecology and phylogeny and is merely “a conceptual decision to give priority to one interpretation over another.”

I'm sure you reconize this since you cited it in your conclusion.

Probably don't want to see this again even though it is the only evidence that you offered as substantive proof:

“The taxonomy of the Hominoidea is in a state of flux, as molecular evidence has drawn close lines of relationship than expected. Clearly, they are not clearly defined and the final classification has not been decided“

Why you thought this was irrelevant is a mystery to me.

"The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite." If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!.

About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," ... to Phædrus... To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science!

Through...theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones...Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos."

Thats the fallacy of your fantasy, it a nihilistic, antiscientific, chaotic departure for the truth, not to it. Just like the Darwins.

 

[Jet Black]

They just don't accept the universal common ancestor model, that does not make them dishonest. Now I have no problem with you saying they are wrong, a lot of people would agree with that. But to call them dishonest because they don't support a single common ancestor model...thats going too far.

that's okay because I am not talking about that. They misrepresent evolution my making it appear as if it is nothing but chance. lets go back to what they say:

1. Life is the result of design and creation (not time and chance acting on the inherent property of matter.

This implies that the only alternative to design and creation is purely time and chance, but this is not an accurate portrayal of evolution. while chance is involved in the emergence of the variation, the selective pressures on life are not - they are entirely the opposite of chance. By missing this they have omitted a core part of evolution and are hence misrepresenting it. If it can be demonstrated that they simply did not know about selection, then I will withdraw my accusation that they were being dishonest.

Mainly because mutations are rarely beneficial and hardly qualify as a demonstrated mechanism for the universal common ancestor model. What reason do we have to believe that they do accumulate?

Mutations alone are not the issue in a universal common ancestor model. Remember the other issues which morris and parker omit, namely the selection pressures and also sexual reproduction as well. even if rare, it doesn't matter, because beneficial mutations are preserved by natural selection. Furthermore, there is also the random variation within the population which can create neutral changes which may become beneficial (or perhaps detrimental) at a later stage.

We can see as a fact that beneficial mutations are preserved in the population by selection pressures, and hence if one beneficial mutation is preserved and then another comes along which builds on that previous mutation, then it too will be preserved. The nylon degrading bacteria is an example of this, in which the initial beneficial mutation became preserved within the population living in the nylon pool, and then additional mutations occured that increased the efficacy of the new enzyme. I fail to see how beneficial mutations could not accumulate. I don't know why you are bringing the universal common ancestor into this at this stage, it seems a bit of a red herring.

 

[Jet Black]

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't this a study of fruitflys, I have no real problem with dramatic changes in their short gene sequences being changed dramaticly. The more complex the organism becomes the more harmfull major changes in the genes would be.

I would think that major changes in the genome would be likely to be lethal in even simple oranisms, not just the large ones, but then one does not expect evolution to change by major changes anyway.
Dawkins expressed this in his concept of gene space, in which the organisms evolve by moving slowly along adjacent locations in gene space, rather than taking large leaps into the unknown.

 

[Jet Black]

Benificial would be the exception not the rule, in fact they are very rare even if the are occasionally retained. This doesn't represent a demonstrated mechanism for macroevolution.

but preservation of beneficial changes would be the rule and not the exception. Again, mutation itself is not the mechanism, there are a variety of elements to the mechanism of evolution, the important ones that you seem to be missing are differential reproductive success.

 

[Jet Black]

That is a really big if Pete, to say nothing of the fact that recursion is largely a matter of conjecture. At best it represents an hypothesis that has yet to be demonstrated.

no actually, it has been observed in the nylon oligomer, in which additional mutations built on the original mutation as a result of recursion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11092619

I wonder though why you think recursion is nothing more than conjecture, when it seems rather obvious that once some feature has become embedded in a population due to its selective advantage, that modifications to that feature are then possible.

 

[Jet Black]

The limited gene pool would be the most obvious, then there is the tendancy of the DNA to repair changes caused by mutations.

but it cannot do this once meiosis has taken place. remember that the important mutations for evolution are those that occur in the sex cells and become embedded within the organism.

I don't really have a problem with evolution in a limited sense but for the universal common ancestor model to work you have to have a demonstrated that accounts for countless microevolutionary changes.

variation and differential reproductive success. I fail to see how this cannot account for the large scale changes in life.

 

[mark kennedy]

Jet, I wonder what you would think of this and if it is consistant with what you are trying to tell me.

"Now, there are probably some 30,000 genes in a wolf/dog, and if every gene locus were heterozygous (two different alleles), then for each gene there are 10 possible pairs of four types of allele (if the alleles are A, B, C, D; then the possible pairs can be easily tabulated: AA, AB, AC, AD, BB, BC, BD, CC, CD, DD — for n types of allele, the number of possible pairs is n(n+1)/2).

With the recombinations due to sexual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 10^30,000 (this is 1 followed by 30,000 zeros). To put this in perspective, there are thought to be some 10^80 atoms in the Universe! So, it appears that two wolves could produce quite a few descendants before the pattern would have to be repeated! Now because not every gene locus is likely to be heterozygous in the original pair, and because of recessive alleles not every gene will be expressed, so the number of animals that could actually be different in their form (‘phenotype’) would be less than the huge number above."

Its from AIG and I found it interesting, I'd have provided the link but I suspect you are not really interested in reading the entire article. I am not blowing off the rest of what you are saying but I don't think I will be getting to it tonight.

 

[Jet Black]

For one thing I don't consider the changes in gene frequencies to be mutations at all, frankly I consider it to be providential. Given the normal healthy gene pool the amount of change grows not from competition but from an abundance of resourses. Scarcity would hamper growth and develpment and by the same token a mutated gene would diminish diversity not inhance it.

that is very confusing - additional variety is less diversity?

Perhaps I am mistaking the term mutation and confusing it with Darwin's monstrocity or Richard Goldschmidt's 'hopefull monster', I don't know for sure. I realize that terms like deviate and mutation are meant to covey the idea of a change that are neither good nor bad just different.

yes, I suggest forgetting about Darwin's monstrosity and Goldschmidts hopeful monster.

 

[Jet Black]

Jet, I wonder what you would think of this and if it is consistant with what you are trying to tell me.

"Now, there are probably some 30,000 genes in a wolf/dog, and if every gene locus were heterozygous (two different alleles), then for each gene there are 10 possible pairs of four types of allele (if the alleles are A, B, C, D; then the possible pairs can be easily tabulated: AA, AB, AC, AD, BB, BC, BD, CC, CD, DD — for n types of allele, the number of possible pairs is n(n+1)/2).

With the recombinations due to sexual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 10^30,000 (this is 1 followed by 30,000 zeros). To put this in perspective, there are thought to be some 10^80 atoms in the Universe! So, it appears that two wolves could produce quite a few descendants before the pattern would have to be repeated! Now because not every gene locus is likely to be heterozygous in the original pair, and because of recessive alleles not every gene will be expressed, so the number of animals that could actually be different in their form (‘phenotype’) would be less than the huge number above."

Its from AIG and I found it interesting, I'd have provided the link but I suspect you are not really interested in reading the entire article. I am not blowing off the rest of what you are saying but I don't think I will be getting to it tonight.

Within species there is plenty potantial variety, but the main issue centres around particular genes. in two organisms there is not much potential variety in genes, since there are only four present alleles. Some of the other arguments presented by AIG, i.e. splitting and crossing of individual genes is ok on one hand, since that would create additional variety, but then there is the problem of linkage disequilibrium which they do not address, and the actual rarity of crossing over occuring right in the middle of a gene - for some genes this supposed crossing over would have had to happen 200 times to give all the different alleles, and this is assuming that all of that variety was contained within the original 2 genes, and that crossing over would create a working gene each time. There are a wide variety of mutational mechanisms and it seems somewhat foolhardy to reject most of them - crossing over is just another mutation after all.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Ok, there is no panel so you are being ridiculas.

That's r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. Learn to spell. And you know what I meant. Let's see if anyone else here agrees with you.

For another thing I was intending to argue for the creationist model and

Darwin is clearly well within bounds.

Maybe in another discussion, but not this one. We're trying to determine if or how something happened long before Darwin, that he didn't have anything to do with.

As far as my allegation you should stop to think about introducing those convoluted 39 taxanomic questions after the debate had allready started. Thats moving the goal posts, making double, triple and quadriple posts is moving the goal posts.

No sir. You are moving the goal posts right now. Our rules were to properly address every point and every direct question. As you both demonstrated and agreed earlier, this can't always be done in 2500 words or less, especially when your last post came in multiple parts, and one whole post was nothing but a volley of questions. To criticize me for multiple posts while doing the same thing yourself is hypocrisy. As I said, if you don't want to be called a hypocrite, don't be a hypocrite.

I wasn't aware that this was the last post but since you have finally informed me I'll ask the moderators to close the thread.

I expected you to continue the discussion. As I said, the debate may be over, but there were still several points you should have addressed.

You didn't follow any of the rules that are supposed to restrict the length of the posts, the Ad Hominem arguments or the restriction against having over 12 rounds.

That's because we both mutually agreed to another set of rules at the start; rules which you agreed would have been severely compromised had we followed the other set.

And in yet another moment of hypocrisy, you were the one making ad hominem attacks, not me. You talked to me in the 3rd person, calling me "the evolutionist" and in so doing generalizing my stereotype and negatively associating that with Nazis, commies, and any other emotionally-charged prejudiced label you thought you could apply. I never did any of that.

Don't invite me into another formal debate unless you intend to follow the rules next time.

You didn't follow any of the rules, not this board's, and not the ones in our initial agreement either. That too is hypocrisy.

Had you even bothered to ask me I would have gladly told you that its the single common ancestor model and gradualism that I think is the myth of evolution. You never did, you just went into one rant after another doing you little victory dance everytime you made a post.

I never had to ask because you kept repeating it. And I kept explaining why it wasn't. The rants were all yours alone, and they were all irrelevant; hypocrisy again.

Oh whatever, anyone who doesnt agree with you is illiterate, uneducated and truth allways gets more questions then answers.

Only the last part of that statement is true. I've had disagreements with people who were very well-read, and sometimes quite learned people. Lucaspa is one of them. Sometimes when I argue against people with a superior education, I can still prevail if I happen to be right. Sometimes I turn out to be wrong. In this case, your education wasn't the issue, you just happened to be wrong about every single point you tried to make.

I offered you a peer reviewed article that made it clear that the transition from reptile to bird transition would have killed you perfect transitional.

You'd better go back and read my reply again, because I showed you that it clearly never said that, that in fact these very scientists wrote that birds could still be descended from dinosaurs, and that the respiration systems could have evolved directly from them, and that the first birds didn't even have the avian respiration system yet, so (in their own words) none of this precluded dinosaurs from becoming birds, and in fact that dinosaurs and birds were indeed definitely very closely-related through a universal archosaurian ancestor.

And yes, their work is peer-reviewed. But it was reviewed very harshly, (as I said) because they made so many bizarre statements in that, some of which directly contradict the facts, like their claim that early birds were still cold-blooded and that feathers independently arose in three different lineages, etc. I have to wonder if you even bothered to read my reply.

Your a militant atheist with deep prejudices against anything theistic unless it agrees with you and that is the only thing you proved.

I am not a militant atheist as I allowed for God's existence throughout the entire discussion, and never even implied his non-existence. I proved a great many things in that debate, one of them being that religious beliefs are beyond science, and are therefore unscientific. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're untrue.

Now as far as the rest of this pointless satire and sarcasm the only thing I am mystified about is, Why does the heathen rage?

Because I am a patriot, and I want to regain our status at the forefront of science and technology. We are now falling far behind some of the Asian and European nations in that, largely because of all the ridiculous propaganda being fed to our undereducated masses from podiums across the country. So I engage in debates like this to prove my points in an arena where someone may see just how weak the creationist position really is.

"Such has not always been the rule. Instead, “the strongest impression gained from reading the literature of the dinosaur [metabolic] physiology controversy is that some of the participants have behaved more like politicians or attorneys than scientists, passionately coming to dogmatic conclusions via arguments based on questionable assumptions and/or data subject to other interpretations” (Farlow 1990, pp. 43–44). In addition, significant peer pressure to interpret morphology, physiology, and/or behavior

of extinct taxa primarily by reliance on cladograminferred relationships has been noted elsewhere (Feduccia 1999a; Dodson 2000; Padian and Horner 2002). However, as Westoby et al. (1995, p. 532) point out, heavy reliance on cladograms as paleobiological guides largely ignores the interaction between ecology and phylogeny and is merely “a conceptual decision to give priority to one interpretation over another.”

I'm sure you reconize this since you cited it in your conclusion.

Yes, and I agree with it completely.

Probably don't want to see this again even though it is the only evidence that you offered as substantive proof:

You misunderstand everything. Allow me to follow that sentiment with one of my favorite quotes;

"The worst aspect of the Velikofsky affair wasn't that his ideas were wrong, or silly, or in gross contradiction to the facts. The worst aspect of the Velikofsky affair is that some scientists tried to suppress these ideas. Suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be commonplace in religion or in politics. But it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in science."
--Carl Sagan; COSMOS, episode 4

“The taxonomy of the Hominoidea is in a state of flux, as molecular evidence has drawn close lines of relationship than expected. Clearly, they are not clearly defined and the final classification has not been decided“

Why you thought this was irrelevant is a mystery to me.

I thought it was very relevant. You misunderstand everything. Read my reply again, and try to understand what I said about science being a self-correcting process.

"The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite." If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!.

All points dead-wrong. The number is not infinite. There are only so many hypotheses that can fit the evidence, and there it is in no way nihilistic to insist that the evidence and the hypothesis must match, or that the hypothesis must be testable. That is the strength of the scientific method. You're only railing against it because it doesn't accept baseless assertions of whatever magic beings you want to make up. If they exist, there should be some way to test for their involvement. If that can't be done, then we'll have to go with whatever we can test for and show to definitely be involved.

About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," ... to Phædrus... To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science!

I see a lot of quotes erroneously affixed to Einstein. You're going to have to defend this one, and explain why you keep posting it.

Through...theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones...Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos."

I give you demonstrated evidence, and peer-reviewed science, and you give me Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanance. Pathetic.

Thats the fallacy of your fantasy, it a nihilistic, antiscientific, chaotic departure for the truth, not to it. Just like the Darwins.

As usual, your only consistency is that you absolutely wrong about absolutely everything.

 

[Ondoher]

What I was talking about was the Austrapithecus afarensis was identified as a new species. They are clearly some kind of apes and the Lucy and the Hadar specimens are more primitive then the ones that Leaky found. The crucial definition of man includes an upright posture. The point being that these creatures have much more in common with Pan paniscus (pygmy chimpanzee) and is most likely the direct descent of the Australopithecine specimens.

There are many traits that separate humans from all other apes, bipedality is one. It also appear to be the first defining characteristic to evolve. By the time Lucy came around, maybe three million years after the humans and chimp lines diverged, bipedalism was already quite advanced.

Now, I'm a little confused, which specific Leaky specimens are you talking about? I may have lost my place.

For one thing good science tests hypothesis and if the crucial point of demonstration is found to fit the hypothesis it becomes a theory. The hypothesis didn't hold up as new data came to light so they created a new one. Now the whole thing is more convoluted the the original linear model, this has thrown the whole taxonomic scenerio into a state of flux. Science is supposed to determine truth and demonstrate it, this mess just confuses the issues since it fits the facts into previous assumptions.

The hypothesis that brains developed before bipedalism was falsified. It now appears that bipedalism developed first, and brain size increased later. We also understand that the evolution of humans, much like anything else, is not a strictly linear progression. That's no surprise, look at the diversity in the dog, cat or equine families.

I don't see how this invalidates the general notion of common ancestry, as all the fossils being discussed are clearly transitional, just the relative phylogenetic placement is being debated.

I also fail to see what previous assumptions you are referring to.

Thats because people like Leaky and Johnson are trying to find the human ancestor, its not like they ever look for a more realistic line of descent. Thats what happens when you force the fact to fit your presumptions.

They are trying to find the best phylogenetic fit for the data. That's why this whole issue is still pretty hotly debated. Which presumptions are you referring to?

Thats your opinion and you haven't really got a handle on the facts as I presented them.

Then by all means, fill in the missing details.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. Learn to spell. And you know what I meant. Let's see if anyone else here agrees with you.
Maybe in another discussion, but not this one. We're trying to determine if or how something happened long before Darwin, that he didn't have anything to do with.
No sir. You are moving the goal posts right now. Our rules were to properly address every point and every direct question. As you both demonstrated and agreed earlier, this can't always be done in 2500 words or less, especially when your last post came in multiple parts, and one whole post was nothing but a volley of questions. To criticize me for multiple posts while doing the same thing yourself is hypocrisy. As I said, if you don't want to be called a hypocrite, don't be a hypocrite.

So you pin me down with multiple posts that include dozens of questions leaving me with a dilemma. I can fail to answer the questions or go over the 2500 word limit. Now as far as the questions I offered I would never have done that had it no become apparent you were unwilling or unable to demonstrate the mechanism of evolution. This was an attempt to get you to focus on genetics and the philosophy of science known as naturalistic methodology. You never answered my question on the cleavage stage did you Aron-ra, did you?

I expected you to continue the discussion. As I said, the debate may be over, but there were still several points you should have addressed.
That's because we both mutually agreed to another set of rules at the start; rules which you agreed would have been severely compromised had we followed the other set.

You got a nerve to preach to me about the rules since you didn't even bother to read them before we started. There is a reason for the restrictions that you don't have in here, it forces the debaters to be concise and boil it down to the primary points of disagreement. I'm going to stop there...

And in yet another moment of hypocrisy, you were the one making ad hominem attacks, not me. You talked to me in the 3rd person, calling me "the evolutionist" and in so doing generalizing my stereotype and negatively associating that with Nazis, commies, and any other emotionally-charged prejudiced label you thought you could apply. I never did any of that.

Wrong, when I speak of the evolutionist in general terms I mean the evolutionist at large. Since you depart from the mainstream on many of the substantive points of evolutionary biology I would not strech the meaning of the term to include you. Whats more I consider that no worse then calling me a Christian or a creationist, if you have the courage of your convictions it actually a compliment. As far as the connection of Hitler to Darwin all you had to do is to point out the substantive difference, I know I could.

You didn't follow any of the rules, not this board's, and not the ones in our initial agreement either. That too is hypocrisy.
I never had to ask because you kept repeating it. And I kept explaining why it wasn't. The rants were all yours alone, and they were all irrelevant; hypocrisy again.

The name calling is telling, they say you condemn in others the thing you most fear about youself. You didn't answer my question and when I called you on it you went off and have been ever since. I think you are just telling on yourself.

Only the last part of that statement is true. I've had disagreements with people who were very well-read, and sometimes quite learned people. Lucaspa is one of them. Sometimes when I argue against people with a superior education, I can still prevail if I happen to be right. Sometimes I turn out to be wrong. In this case, your education wasn't the issue, you just happened to be wrong about every single point you tried to make.

You forgot to mention Darwin, Gould, Mayr and a number of others who you criticised. I may well be wrong but its impossible for me to be wrong about everything since I got most of what I am arguing comes from evolutionary biology. You never liked me trying to discuss how species are defined in natural science did you? Thats why you ignored my comments on OH 62, you only like the sytematics that are in a constant state of flux and chemicals swimming around in and endless sea of random combinations. Life is not chaotic or nillistic, but orderly and combinations have to come together all at once. It cannot happen piecemeal.

You'd better go back and read my reply again, because I showed you that it clearly never said that, that in fact these very scientists wrote that birds could still be descended from dinosaurs, and that the respiration systems could have evolved directly from them, and that the first birds didn't even have the avian respiration system yet, so (in their own words) none of this precluded dinosaurs from becoming birds, and in fact that dinosaurs and birds were indeed definitely very closely-related through a universal archosaurian ancestor.

Its not that cut and dried but I'll save that for my response. This is what happens when you few everything as being in a state of flux, undiscoverable and random. Nothing is ever defined or determined so any demonstrated evidence can be rationalized away.

And yes, their work is peer-reviewed. But it was reviewed very harshly, (as I said) because they made so many bizarre statements in that, some of which directly contradict the facts, like their claim that early birds were still cold-blooded and that feathers independently arose in three different lineages, etc. I have to wonder if you even bothered to read my reply.

I got through the first two but it was just an attack on me personally up untill the middle of the second part. I'll get to the rest of it when I answer your incessant allegations here.

I am not a militant atheist as I allowed for God's existence throughout the entire discussion, and never even implied his non-existence. I proved a great many things in that debate, one of them being that religious beliefs are beyond science, and are therefore unscientific. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're untrue.

You see, when you finally calm down you make some interesting points. I am not trying to quantify or qualify my religious convictions empirically. Actually I am trying to find common ground. I really have no problem with what you said there, I don't want my theology critically peer reviewed in a scientific journal anyway.

Because I am a patriot, and I want to regain our status at the forefront of science and technology. We are now falling far behind some of the Asian and European nations in that, largely because of all the ridiculous propaganda being fed to our undereducated masses from podiums across the country. So I engage in debates like this to prove my points in an arena where someone may see just how weak the creationist position really is.
Yes, and I agree with it completely.
You misunderstand everything. Allow me to follow that sentiment with one of my favorite quotes;

I'm going to hear you out before I respond to the above part.

"The worst aspect of the Velikofsky affair wasn't that his ideas were wrong, or silly, or in gross contradiction to the facts. The worst aspect of the Velikofsky affair is that some scientists tried to suppress these ideas. Suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be commonplace in religion or in politics. But it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in science."
--Carl Sagan; COSMOS, episode 4
I thought it was very relevant. You misunderstand everything. Read my reply again, and try to understand what I said about science being a self-correcting process.
All points dead-wrong. The number is not infinite. There are only so many hypotheses that can fit the evidence, and there it is in no way nihilistic to insist that the evidence and the hypothesis must match, or that the hypothesis must be testable. That is the strength of the scientific method. You're only railing against it because it doesn't accept baseless assertions of whatever magic beings you want to make up. If they exist, there should be some way to test for their involvement. If that can't be done, then we'll have to go with whatever we can test for and show to definitely be involved.
I see a lot of quotes erroneously affixed to Einstein. You're going to have to defend this one, and explain why you keep posting it.

Look, I liked the quote from Pirsig's book, it was never meant to be a point of contention, just food for thought. Now as far as what you call magic God's soverign will being expressed in the affairs of men used to be considered a natural law. Did you know the John Locke and Sir Issac Newton were close friends and their ideals about God's providence were inextricably linked to natural laws. The context can change from science to politics and even to theology but God was never excluded in their thinking.

I give you demonstrated evidence, and peer-reviewed science, and you give me Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanance. Pathetic.
As usual, your only consistency is that you absolutely wrong about absolutely everything.

You forget the context I inserted the quote from Pirsig's book into. You have offered taxonomy as your primary source for demonstration. Calling me wrong is to be expected and I would have been shocked by anything less. The attacks on me personally and your mischaracterizations of my religious convictions are out of line. I realize in a debate like this there is a lot of emotion and frustration that will be vented, but when the smoke clears the fact will remain unchanged. Now I have to write a response in the formal debate forum, this should be fun.

 

[Aron-Ra]

So you pin me down with multiple posts that include dozens of questions leaving me with a dilemma. I can fail to answer the questions or go over the 2500 word limit.

Which we had already shown was not an issue in our debate. 39 questions requiring only yes or no answers wouldn't have threatened you 2500 word limit anyway.

Now as far as the questions I offered I would never have done that had it no become apparent you were unwilling or unable to demonstrate the mechanism of evolution.

But I am willing and able to do so, and it was never apparent that I was not. That's what I am trying to do, but you keep insisting on talking about philosophies instead.

This was an attempt to get you to focus on genetics and the philosophy of science known as naturalistic methodology.

And as I said, we will get to that, but we can't until you understand some of the foundational concepts. This was an attempt to get you to focus on genetics, taxonomy, and the forensic evidence in the fossil record. But you keep snipping and ignoring critical questions, moving the goal posts, and changing the subject, wasting your posts on immaterial matters like Darwinism and atheism.

You never answered my question on the cleavage stage did you Aron-ra, did you?

Listen to that accusatory tone! You admit you hadn't even read the whole thing, yet you confidently assume the worst of me, again, without hesitation, despite your deplorable track record for false assumptions in the past. Now that you've finally read the post, you know that I did answer that...twice, yet I found no hint of apology in your posts. Are all your positions based on negative assumptions, without even checking to see if they're justified? Isn't that exactly what prejudice is?

You got a nerve to preach to me about the rules since you didn't even bother to read them before we started.

I did read them before we started. But that was months ago, and as I said, they didn't apply to the debate I proposed, and the moderators had no problem with that.

There is a reason for the restrictions that you don't have in here, it forces the debaters to be concise and boil it down to the primary points of disagreement. I'm going to stop there...

I don't need any such restriction because I am able to stay on-topic. You on the other hand....

And didn't we also have a rule against cutting and pasting large portions of other people's websites for me to argue against, instead of debating you directly in your own words? Didn't we have another rule about honestly conceding points that were clearly lost? Are you going to concede the error in your silly claim that all mutations must be harmful? I think you lost that point clearly enough. And what about your constant insistence that all evolutionists be prejudiced against theism? You lost that one pretty soundly too. Now will you owe up to that like an honest man?

And in yet another moment of hypocrisy, you were the one making ad hominem attacks, not me. You talked to me in the 3rd person, calling me "the evolutionist" and in so doing generalizing my stereotype and negatively associating that with Nazis, commies, and any other emotionally-charged prejudiced label you thought you could apply. I never did any of that.

Wrong, when I speak of the evolutionist in general terms I mean the evolutionist at large.

Right, the generalized stereotype, just as I said.

Since you depart from the mainstream on many of the substantive points of evolutionary biology I would not strech the meaning of the term to include you.

But you do generalize me, (by your own admission here) and you did try to label me, both as a neo-darwinist and as a militant atheist. And I do not depart from the mainstream, nor do I have reason to.

Whats more I consider that no worse then calling me a Christian or a creationist, if you have the courage of your convictions it actually a compliment.

It is not a compliment to be spoken to in the third person, as if you are preaching to an audience rather than discussing anything with me.

And I have a problem with the strength of any conviction that is not based on evidence of any kind. What good is being firmly convinced if you happen to be wrong? How would you ever find out if you were or not?

As far as the connection of Hitler to Darwin all you had to do is to point out the substantive difference, I know I could.

I did. And if I bring up Hitler's religious influences, or the crusades, or the Inquisition, or the witch trials, you could defend yourself against that too. But it would still be inappropriate for either of us to employ such cheap and devious attempts at negative association that have nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

The rants were all yours alone, and they were all irrelevant; hypocrisy again.

The name calling is telling, they say you condemn in others the thing you most fear about youself.

That explains why you keep yelling about prejudice. Your entire argument has been little more than bigoted labeling and sensationalist, instigative attempts at insult. I have told you several times in our debate that you can't intimidate me, and there's no point in trying to insult me. Yet you continue to try. Remember that I have asked you more than once in that debate to try and discuss this rationally, and try not to jump to such prejudiced conclusions and emotional pleas.

Creationists often condemn in others that which they most fear in themselves. And they usually counter this with some form of projection, like accusing atheists or evolutionists of having faith, (for example). This behavior is related to the fact that we do tend to assume that other people are the same as we are. That's why liars are naturally suspicious and thieves are so careful lock their own doors. Similarly, I keep thinking that other people are logical, that their positions are based on reason, and that they will respond honestly.

You didn't answer my question and when I called you on it you went off and have been ever since. I think you are just telling on yourself.

I don't know how you thought I "went off" because, unlike you, I haven't been riled by anything said or implied so far. This is only an intellectual discussion, one where my passions are not involved, and it wouldn't matter if I turn out to be wrong. If I am, I would want to know that where you, (evidently) don't. And unlike you, I have answered every question that was asked of me. I reply to every point and query systematically. I don't snip the bits I don't want to deal with like you do. So there was never anything you could have called me on.

Sometimes when I argue against people with a superior education, I can still prevail if I happen to be right. Sometimes I turn out to be wrong. In this case, your education wasn't the issue, you just happened to be wrong about every single point you tried to make.

You forgot to mention Darwin, Gould, Mayr and a number of others who you criticised.

Unlike you, they weren't wrong about everything they said. I can't agree with everything any one person says, because we're all just people. However, I don't remember any disagreement with either Mayr or Gould, although I have disagreed strongly with Gould's associate, Niles Eldredge, and particularly with those who seem to follow him.

I may well be wrong but its impossible for me to be wrong about everything since I got most of what I am arguing comes from evolutionary biology.

And yet you were still wrong about everything, and apparently didn't understand most of the sources you cited, which you thought would support you.

You never liked me trying to discuss how species are defined in natural science did you?

Only when you accuse me of never having provided a definition when I already have.

Thats why you ignored my comments on OH 62,

I haven't ignored anything you've ever said. Why do you keep saying I have? Besides, didn't you already admit that Homo habilis was related to Homo sapiens?

you only like the sytematics that are in a constant state of flux and chemicals swimming around in and endless sea of random combinations. Life is not chaotic or nillistic, but orderly and combinations have to come together all at once. It cannot happen piecemeal.

Sorry, but that's just not true. And don't tell another person what they think. You'll almost always be wrong if you do, especially if you can't remember what they've already said. Life is extremely chaotic, but I am not a nihilist.

I told you that recent molecular evidence has caused some redefinition, and I think it is a vastly improved system now. Really the only reason there ever had to be any corrections made was due to some homocentric prejudice from the 18th century. It was already known even in Darwin's day that chimpanzees were more closely-related to humans than to orangutans, yet they were all defined as Pongids anyway. Its about time that 200+ year-old error was addressed. It should not remain in flux now that these corrections have been made.

This is what happens when you few everything as being in a state of flux, undiscoverable and random.

But I don't. As I have already repeatedly pointed out, I don't think anything is "undiscoverable", and you yourself have admitted that our knowledge of anything is subject to change as our understanding improves.

Nothing is ever defined or determined so any demonstrated evidence can be rationalized away.

You haven't said anything I needed to rationalize, and I have given precise definitions for everything we've talked about. I demanded you do the same too, though you've refused every request. Hypocrisy again.

I got through the first two but it was just an attack on me personally up untill the middle of the second part. I'll get to the rest of it when I answer your incessant allegations here.

But you're attacking me personally, and you're the one making incessant allegations. I have no interest in either, and am having a heck of a time getting you to drop the instigative insults and focus on the topic rationally without making all your weird, prejudiced negative associations and paranoid assumptions.

You see, when you finally calm down you make some interesting points.

What color are the clouds in your world? When was there ever a time when I wasn't calm in this whole discussion? You haven't riled me once, and (as I have already said in that thread) I don't even think you could.

Now as far as what you call magic God's soverign will being expressed in the affairs of men used to be considered a natural law. Did you know the John Locke and Sir Issac Newton were close friends and their ideals about God's providence were inextricably linked to natural laws. The context can change from science to politics and even to theology but God was never excluded in their thinking.

How is any of this at all relevant to whether we share a common ancestor with some other ape?

I see a lot of quotes erroneously affixed to Einstein. You're going to have to defend this one, and explain why you keep posting it.

Look, I liked the quote from Pirsig's book, it was never meant to be a point of contention, just food for thought.

It won't be until you explain why you keep posting it.

You have offered taxonomy as your primary source for demonstration. Calling me wrong is to be expected and I would have been shocked by anything less. The attacks on me personally and your mischaracterizations of my religious convictions are out of line.

You associated evolution with Nazi fascism, and you constantly comment about things you think I either don't realize, don't like, forgot, or that I'm afraid of. So you've made lots of attacks against me, personally, but I haven't made any against you, nor would I need or want to. I am trying really hard to have a rational discussion with someone who insists on behaving irrationally.

I realize in a debate like this there is a lot of emotion and frustration that will be vented, but when the smoke clears the fact will remain unchanged.

Then drop all the stupid attempts to insult me. Answer my questions honestly, and stop all the irrational emotional pleas. Show me you have some reason and accountability.

 

[Jet Black]

And as I said, we will get to that, but we can't until you understand some of the foundational concepts. This was an attempt to get you to focus on genetics, taxonomy, and the forensic evidence in the fossil record. But you keep snipping and ignoring critical questions, moving the goal posts, and changing the subject, wasting your posts on immaterial matters like Darwinism and atheism.

congrats in describing mark in one paragraph.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which we had already shown was not an issue in our debate. 39 questions requiring only yes or no answers wouldn't have threatened you 2500 word limit anyway.
But I am willing and able to do so, and it was never apparent that I was not. That's what I am trying to do, but you keep insisting on talking about philosophies instead.

The modern synthesis is a philosophy, and your 39 questions were introduced well after the debate had allready started. Their signifigance was never elaborated upon, the criteria for these classification schemes were never qualified, this was an obvious attempt to to move the goalposts.

And as I said, we will get to that, but we can't until you understand some of the foundational concepts. This was an attempt to get you to focus on genetics, taxonomy, and the forensic evidence in the fossil record. But you keep snipping and ignoring critical questions, moving the goal posts, and changing the subject, wasting your posts on immaterial matters like Darwinism and atheism.

Both Dawinism and atheistic materialism are foundational. The taxonomic scheme is based on the single common ancestor model so any is based on that foundational premise.

Listen to that accusatory tone! You admit you hadn't even read the whole thing, yet you confidently assume the worst of me, again, without hesitation, despite your deplorable track record for false assumptions in the past. Now that you've finally read the post, you know that I did answer that...twice, yet I found no hint of apology in your posts. Are all your positions based on negative assumptions, without even checking to see if they're justified? Isn't that exactly what prejudice is?

Now who is being accusatory, you call my assumptions deplorable because they are not exclusivly naturalistic. You have sniped incessantly and mocked at any hint of an omnipotent God creating the living creatures as described in Genesis. If you are waiting for me to apologize for not accepting your naturalistic assumptions your going to have to do more then mock Christian theism. You say that I'm being prejudicial and since you were never going to even question the single common ancestor model as the only standard your accusations are most likely just projection.

I did read them before we started. But that was months ago, and as I said, they didn't apply to the debate I proposed, and the moderators had no problem with that.
I don't need any such restriction because I am able to stay on-topic. You on the other hand....

The moderators tend to be rather gracious and that can be credited to the Christian temperment of the board. The topic is the origins of our species and which model best supports it. Don't tell me that you didn't know that the subject matter was so broad that the specifics go on endlessly. If you wanted to have a debate exclusivly on taxonomic relationships of all species you should have proposed that instead of starting a general topic and focusing exclusivly on that.

And didn't we also have a rule against cutting and pasting large portions of other people's websites for me to argue against, instead of debating you directly in your own words? Didn't we have another rule about honestly conceding points that were clearly lost? Are you going to concede the error in your silly claim that all mutations must be harmful? I think you lost that point clearly enough. And what about your constant insistence that all evolutionists be prejudiced against theism? You lost that one pretty soundly too. Now will you owe up to that like an honest man?

What we agreed to was:

Ad hominem remarks are clearly forbidden in the rules of the forum so if for instance someone is guilty of quoting out of context, quote mining, arguments from incredulity…etc, the statement not the individual will be addressed

You abandoned this concept immediatly, instead of addressing the questions I asked about evolutions demonstrated mechanism during the development of organisms you simply accused me of anything you could think of. Instead of addressing the cleavage stage question you took to calling me a hypocrite with only a link to a genomic website as a substantive retort.

Right, the generalized stereotype, just as I said.

Its not a stereotype when you offer substantive quotes from leading evolutionary thinkers and critical commentary. You even admitted that the quote from a biology textbook that was laced with a theological premise didn't belong in a biology textbook.

But you do generalize me, (by your own admission here) and you did try to label me, both as a neo-darwinist and as a militant atheist. And I do not depart from the mainstream, nor do I have reason to.
It is not a compliment to be spoken to in the third person, as if you are preaching to an audience rather than discussing anything with me.

I don't have a private peanut gallery so when I speak of the evolutionist I am talking about principles in an antithestic worldview. Evolution itself is fine but the naturalistic assumptions it has come to include are poison. I have more then explained this and frankly I think this is nothing more then a diversionary tactic.

And I have a problem with the strength of any conviction that is not based on evidence of any kind. What good is being firmly convinced if you happen to be wrong? How would you ever find out if you were or not?

After 20 years of reading, debating and reflecting on Christian apologetics I dare say that my opinion could not be wrong by chance. I didn't just happen to choose the Bible as my primary source for epistomology, I made a conscious decision to reject the naturalistic assumptions you defend so vigorously. I have reseached as much of the evidence for the reliability of Scripture as I could, both as history and a philosophical foundation for science. I found it to be a far more reliable foundation then the transitory empircal rationalizatins of naturalistic materialism. You have done nothing to convince me that I am mistaken, in fact you have confirmed my suspicions that evolutionary thought is an attack on Christian theism.

did. And if I bring up Hitler's religious influences, or the crusades, or the Inquisition, or the witch trials, you could defend yourself against that too. But it would still be inappropriate for either of us to employ such cheap and devious attempts at negative association that have nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

Do you really think I have never had to defend my religious convictions against these things? Hitler spoke of the Arian race as the pentacle of God's creation, obviously I am repulsed by this profain, racist rethoric. Now as far as the Inquistion, witch trials and crusades these were atrocities that were commited by people who had lost their religion. The motivation was allways political and financial which the Bible condemns in all its many forms.

The truth is that I only compared Darwin to Hitler because I wanted you to condemn the racist implications, thats all. You don't have to defend evolutionary biology from either Darwin or Hitler's racist tendancies just demonstrate how it is different. Ernst Mayr did, and I was impressed with the way he went about it. I was hoping you would as well, obviously you took it wrong but I never said that evolutionary biology was racist, I was saying that Darwin was. All you had to do was condemn the racist implications and move on, it was never anything personal.

That explains why you keep yelling about prejudice. Your entire argument has been little more than bigoted labeling and sensationalist, instigative attempts at insult. I have told you several times in our debate that you can't intimidate me, and there's no point in trying to insult me. Yet you continue to try. Remember that I have asked you more than once in that debate to try and discuss this rationally, and try not to jump to such prejudiced conclusions and emotional pleas.

I never accused you of any such thing. If you don't like having racism associated with your worldview and scientific studies then condemn the racism of Darwin and Hitler. Calling me a bigot isn't going to improve the quality of the debate, and by the way, I am not intimidated by this kind of a rant either.

Creationists often condemn in others that which they most fear in themselves. And they usually counter this with some form of projection, like accusing atheists or evolutionists of having faith, (for example). This behavior is related to the fact that we do tend to assume that other people are the same as we are. That's why liars are naturally suspicious and thieves are so careful lock their own doors. Similarly, I keep thinking that other people are logical, that their positions are based on reason, and that they will respond honestly.

Me thinks thou does protest too much.

I don't know how you thought I "went off" because, unlike you, I haven't been riled by anything said or implied so far. This is only an intellectual discussion, one where my passions are not involved, and it wouldn't matter if I turn out to be wrong. If I am, I would want to know that where you, (evidently) don't. And unlike you, I have answered every question that was asked of me. I reply to every point and query systematically. I don't snip the bits I don't want to deal with like you do. So there was never anything you could have called me on. [/quoto]

Right, thats why the name calling has came out in every response. Lets see, Bibleolatry, hypocricy, dishonesty, bigotary...no I don't see any emotionally charged explosions of insults in those terms.

I haven't ignored anything you've ever said. Why do you keep saying I have? Besides, didn't you already admit that Homo habilis was related to Homo sapiens?

I suggested that but the size of the skulls makes this hard to reconcile to reality. Like the other fossils its tricky but I was simply looking at the use of tools, I was responding to a list of dozens of terms I had only recently been exposed to. Since we are getting close to the end of the debate I'll put as much into the supposed human ancestor fossils as I can.

The rest is more of the same, I never accused you of anything I simply asked you to point out the substantive differnce between Darwin and Hitler. I provided you with two allmost identical quotes and you failed to answer the question. Instead you hurled one insult after another. You keep doing this which is why the length of you posts is a waste of space. Most of them are just emotionally charged attacks on me personally. Just point out the subtantive difference or condemn the two statements as racist. That's all you have to do and quit wasting my time with these incessant allegations.

The truth is that natural science is a very precise and delicate tool. Its not a club to be used as a blunt force weapon. We are begining round ten so I am going to ignore your accusations and insults and begin to digest and summarize the main points in the debate. This is the last time I trust someone to abhere to the rules of formal debate without a commitment to do so at the outset. I suspected that you were unaware and unconcerned with them when we started this debate but I let you rush me into it blindly, I'll know better next time.

 

[Physics_guy]

After 20 years of reading, debating and reflecting on Christian apologetics I dare say that my opinion could not be wrong by chance.

Wow - that is arguably the most arrogant statement I have read on this forum. Not surprising coming from a dogmatist like mark kennedy, but still noteworthy.

 

[Physics_guy]

I was hoping you would as well, obviously you took it wrong but I never said that evolutionary biology was racist, I was saying that Darwin was.

Darwin was, however, relativity enlightened for his time when it comes to racial relations.

Now Martin Luther - there's a real anti-semitic racist monster!

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow - that is arguably the most arrogant statement I have read on this forum. Not surprising coming from a dogmatist like mark kennedy, but still noteworthy.

I never said that I couldn't be wrong because I have studied. What I said was that I could not be wrong by chance. If I'm wrong it is based on a choice I made because I studied and feel sufficently informed to defend my opinions. What is arrogant about that?